@AxeHomeless I would say that Christopher is a little more entertaining than Sam, but I think Sam is a hell of a lot more effective. Hitchens could be written off as an angry, emotion driven atheist easier. But Sams calm, cool, respectful style of speaking slaughters them so gently, it's hard for the religious to disregard what he says.
@sonykroket Because people want to have authority over other people's lives... the power they lack over themselves, they want over other people. of course, that's just one of the reasons...
samharris*org/blog/item/why-id-rather-not-speak-about-torture1/ Please replace the * with a period, and thumbs up my comment if you'd like to reduce the idiotic notion that Sam is pro-torture, because this is getting ridiculous.
sam harris is an excellent speaker. but his argument against miracle is quiet strange. he gave the example of sai baba and concludes that since sai baba's miracles don't appear in the discovery channel, those miracles can't happen. what kind of argument is this??
@markchanggz He's saying that it's hypocritical to easily dismiss alleged "miracles" that happen today, and yet unquestionably accept miracles that supposedly happened thousands of years ago. And that the only evidence that attests to the miracles of Jesus are 4 contradictory gospels written decades after his death.
@Acrimonator i'm not sure if harris would agree w/you, b/c you hold a very narrow criterion for knowledge. miracles can't be tested scientifically, so are many of our other everyday commonsensical beliefs. beliefs about morality can't be tested by science, for instance.
@pandurate i didn't read the book but saw the video where harris discussed the book (debate w/peter singer and simon blackburn).. harris admitted that morality couldn't be determined by science in the narrow sense (such as being tested in a lab), at least not yet. that's why peter singer told harris that if Harris' use of "science" refers to rational inquiry in general, then science is no better than disciplines such as philosophy in determining moral values.
This nothing but doubt, doubt, questions after question.What about evolution? what about other religons? Where are the eye witness accounts? For one there is only one god, not gods And If we were capable fathoming the grand scheme of everything then there would be no purpose for religons or gospels. We were told what we needed to hear at the time.God has started a work in us.Created us in his image. And gave us the ability to create.
In principle i agree with Harris...but when it comes to his view on merging both his assessment of religion(which is brilliant imo) and his views on the foreign policy governments should take i completely disagree, both he and Hitchens are swimming in the deep end with no experience when it comes to such matters... and it is extremely apparent.
Not only is Sam Harris very smart, he's also quite funny. Oh yeah, and he's right, too. Hedges is a smart, well-versed man, too, but he's accomodating religion when it's not necessary to do so.
1To a Christian all the proof we need is around us. It is not possible that laws came into exsistance by themselves. Sceince still cannot explain gravity, how could they explain a Being as unfathomable as GOD?
Just because Steven Hawkins or Dawkins (which doesn't even come close to Hawkins) doesn't believe in a god does not mean that people who do are less than intelligent. Remember that hi IQ is close to insanity! There is a riddle that people in college can't figure out but a 1st grader can
@cottoncandicane You say science still can't explain gravity....geometry explains gravity. You say God can't be explained scientifically....It has.
As a christian you say the proof is all around you, it is.
As a christian you follow a doctrine which commands you to kill homosexuals and is content with slavery. Any madman can justify his actions when he selectively quotes scripture from the Bible, give me ANY argument you want and i'll be happy to deconvert you, not from God, but from religion.
@TomFynn 1. The spelling is high IQ not hi IQ. LOL! 2.There is a correlation between High IQ and insanity. Look it up....... Autism/Hitler/Einstein/Picasso 3. If a 1st grader is raised in a atheist household he will say the FSM did it. LOL!
The spelling "hi IQ" is quoted directly from your post I first replied to, so LOL right back at you. Look it up.
I doubt whether Hitler possessed anything like an IQ, Einstein was rather sociable and Picasso was a ladies man. Autism? ROFL.
If a first grader is raised in an atheist household he will say: "The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity."
@TomFynn Hitler's IQ was 141. Genius IQ is between 140-145. Look at the commonality between serial killers and their IQ being either close to genius or genius. Your argument failed. Oops! Looks like you need to do a little more investigating.
@TomFynn Hitler's IQ was 141. Genius IQ is between 140-145. Look at the commonality between serial killers and their IQ being either close to genius or genius. Your argument failed. Oops! Looks like you need to do a little more investigating. Your right the 1st grader would know it is a theory and is untested and unproven. Raised by only atheist parents she would not know about the real possibility of God the great singularity.
@cottoncandicane And if you want me actually believe that number you have to show me the certificate of the test. Which doesn't exist. Oops.
Serial killers are normally classified in the 111-120 range, but even so inferring on the character from the IQ alone is laughable.
A theory is a theory because it has been tested and proven over and over again. If not, it's a conjecture or a hypothesis. Or something completely pulled from the rectum. Like, say "God the great singularity".
Regarding Sam Harris' defending religion point that 'only one religion can be right', Sam Harris doesn't acknowledge here the very glaring fact that every culture on Earth has held dear some metaphysical focus. Religious concerns do diverge between cultures, but there is in each case a fundamental and binding interest in the numinous between them; one which stubbornly continues to haunt the human mind in spite of our technology, in spite of our tensor equations and rational western inclinations.
I'm yet to see a crowd that consists of such a huge number of easily impressed morons like this crowd. Probably Dr. Zakir Naik's crowd is a close contestant. I don't know.
It is truly sad that Sam actually has original things to say. Atheists sit here and applaud his brilliant rhetoric and badass lines like "The mass grave we call mythology." But he is so popular. He should be like every other guy. That the world needs to be told this? That people actually believe this stuff about magic and fairy tales? Absolutely depressing. But Sam's the man. The world's in a hole and he's lifting people out.
@SevenRiderAirForce Well put. That's the striking thing, that we need to be told this. I think Harris does it so simply and eloquently, that he rightly deserves the praise. listening to him, one gets the sensation that ones mind is slowly sinking into a nice warm tub. No, I don't think his arguments are anything that any normally sane, interested person couldn't come to naturally, but he is an excellent speaker and writer, witty, and goes straight to the core in language anyone can understand
I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general secular social perspectives
That sababba guy Sam's referring to is a complete fraud! 100% charlatan! Check him out... Indian dude with a fro. There's videos online debunking his "miracles"... clear video evidence revealing his spontaneous manifestations as deliberate deceit. And millions still believe in him. :(
Why do you claim that atheism is the idea that no religion is correct? when atheism is the claim that there is no diety. You can blieve in a diety and still think all religions are stupid. why would u have to adhere to someone elses beliefe about god to believe in the existense of a diety?
Yea, he's also more reasonable then the others. They're all cool, too. It's just that Sam acknowledges that anyone can have a spiritual experience, and not need religious dogma to justify it.
sorry matey but your wrong I KNOW i'm already dead and have been all my life and believe me there's nothing to believe in ..just think of all the time wasted on GODS ..if mankind had spent as much time on ecology the world might not end in september..
religous followers dont know what will happen after I die. Atheists dont know what will happen after I die. So everyone has the same chance, no matter how ridiculous their idea, to be right simply because NO ONE actually knows.
I myself am a proponent of 'Giant Spaghetti Monster ' dogma. IMHPO, I think all you atheists & anti-pasta-deity religions will burn in hot marinara & mozzarella for eternity. Not acknowledging our steaming angry Pasta Creator is blasphemy!!!
"so everyone has the same chance [of being right]"
christians believe that they will be able to recognise faces after they die. This is a neurological conditon that we know can be disrupted at the level of the brain. If you deystroy a certain part of the brain you deystroy the ability to remember faces. So is it likely that if you deystroy the whole brain one would still be able to recognise faces? A lack of evidence does not make every rediculous claim about the nature of the universe equall
I was about to make a similar comment about why the chances are not equal although neither can disproven. The scientific approach has disproven certain Christian beliefs (like your example of the brain ceasing to function properly) therefore making their belief of what happens after death much less likely.
wow, we have really travelled through the looking glass.
so essentialy God creates a world that when observed provides evidence against her exhistence. Then said god rewards people for ingoring the information haversted by their own senses. Or did the devil invent science?
"faith" is the excuse people give themselves to continue believing something when reasons fail
but maybe you won this discussion becuase i made a spelling mistake or do the words ad hominem mean anything to you. :-)
You can attack religous claims all day; make them look completely foolish. Im not arguing that. You are.
Im just curious, where exactly do YOU think life came from, or where does it go for that matter? I, personally, have no fucking clue & believe me, I've looked.
Anyone who says they know something like God, which is an untestable concept with our means, doesnt exist, is just stroking their ego.
So enjoy your parade for freeing humanity from its anxiety & fear of death, ok?
Are you willing to base your beliefs on a "what if"? You just described Pascal's wager. I don't think that's being honoust to yourself. We'd better base our beliefs on what we can see, test and observe, since that's the most reliable account we have of reality. For what our origins are, we can only speculate. But I'd rather admit I don't know, then pretending I do know with some religious answer.
"For what our origins are, we can only speculate. But I'd rather admit I don't know, then pretending I do know with some religious answer."
I never gave any religous answer, did I? I believe I said exactly what you said, "I don't know", but in your defense, it was weeks ago and scrolling down for background info is so time consuming.
Read through my comments. I haven't endorsed anything except mutual exclusion of ANY supposed answers about existence.
It's a legitimate question. Science can't prove anything to me as far as the afterlife (after, as in when your dead) is concerned. I have heard the claim that science COULD, not is, but COULD be a distraction from the worship of a God; a test of faith. I'm not endorsing the view, personally, but I can't discount it until I die.
And btw, it was 2 weeks ago, not 4 months. The majority of the discussion is on the first page, so I fail to see how you could miss my point.....unless you wanted to.
I usually don't just come into a discussion assuming people's opinions. I won't say that's what you did here, but it sure as hell seemed like it from my side.
In the OT, god hardened Pharoah's heart and prevented him letting the jews go earlier, then visited torture and death on the Egyptians... for a delay he caused his omniscient self!
@mutefx yes but you are somehow saying that the question 'Does somethinh happen when you die?' is a question with either yes/no so id 50/50.... the question it self is not even a legitimate question, because we know what happens to the body when we die, and there is no reason to suppose otherwise... there has never been any evidence to say something does happen... so I reject the question..
@mutefx - The FSM is material and that is all an athiest can believe in, however, quite funny! I am a Christian & I do know what happens after death. The Bible tells what will happen. Where did you get we don't know?
I don't trust the righteousness of the Bible, why are there so many different interpretations if it's written by God? Humans are fearful creatures; we understand that we are going die, no matter what. That knowledge justifies, or creates, a need to explain what death is or where we go afterward. You have "explained" it, I guess. I'm not an atheist btw, you have the same chance of being right about the afterlife as anyone else who throws something out there, like the FSM.
@cottoncandicane "I do know what happens after death. The Bible tells what will happen." Nope. You believe the Bible because PEOPLE told you it's true & it claims divine authorship (as ALL holy books do). Most of the world disagrees with you, btw.
Read another one; you'll find some good advice but also bad, absurdities & contradictions, its divine figures/prophets not nearly so just, wise & good as millions of believers claim.
That's how atheists see holy books, too, including yours.
@cottoncandicane You don´t know, or, if you do, what special information are you privy to that is denied to me? Please tell me you have more than the bible to back you up, if you can´t, please don´t waste any time in replying. Thank you.
@mutefx "religous followers dont know what will happen after I die. Atheists dont know what will happen after I die"
That is correct but not everyone has the same chance to find out. We might someday discover there is an afterlife but it has a much better chance of happening thru science than by faith. Nothing is ever known by faith or assumption.
@clintonrand The most ahteistic societies are the most rich, less violent, less poverty, most educated etc etc.. And I can prove it if you want statistics. I know Mao, and Stalin were also 'Atheisitc'.. but my point is its obvious god is not needed, or even relevant to a functioning society.. its good political ideology.
The gospels were written a long, long time after the events they describe were supposed to have happened by people who werent there and who only heard the stories second-hand, third-hand, or worse.
Just a slight correction, the gospels actually were written not very long after the events they described, at least from a historical point of view. Consider that the Jews were a people who orally passed down their knowledge, and apparently efficient at doing so. Then the Gospel of Mark was written by a follower of Peter, someone who had stayed by Jesus' side throughout his ministry. Matthew and John were disciples of Jesus as well. Then theres Luke, who compiled various sources into one gospel.
you are a blind and def religious retard go and watch some fucked up televangelist and send all your money to him so he can have some coke while his fucking a male prostitute. Dumbass
You don't know very much about what the Bible is all about. You are not that much different than the TV "evangelist" you speak of because neither knows very much about what the Bible is all about and you are not addressing the issues. There are thousands of unexplained directives that are 3 billion digits long that science is unable to account for. It is an "open book" test and they still have not been able to make a life form even by using whatever intellect that they have.
from reading your posts your a confused individual you mistake science answer 'we don't know yet" for evidence of a god. Lets look what has happened in the past with that we don't know how old the earth is so the bible and god must be right. There was only a 6 billion year degree of error with that assumption thats pretty close right?
The age of the earth has nothing to do with the age of life on earth.
That is what happens when you just believe whatever you hear without testing it. All of these things have been considered many times before so don't assume that you somehow know better.
The evidence of a Designer that has all knowledge, all power and who eternal is evident.
I like Sam Harris, because of his humble and calm demeanor. He provide some wise and witty arguments without being excited. He's probably my favorite among the "four horsemen" :)
The arguments of Sam Harris are devastating to himself perhaps but biblical teaching has been around for 6010 years and it is not about to be refuted. On the contrary, intelligent design is observable and objects do not make information.
« It is all attributed to design and NOT to objects. »
But I did not specify the information or even the general classification of that information in the design. It was produced by an open ended non-teleological genetic algorithm. So where did the information come from?
« DNA is observable intelligent design »
How then? What about DNA leads us to conclude it was designed?
Ehr, yes they are. They're called 'computers'. And they're objects. O, and ever hear of 'object oriented programming'?
« because it results in a functional design »
Circular reasoning. It's purposeful because it was designed, and it was designed because it's purposeful. What leads you to conclude DNA has purpose in the first place?
« A computer is a design made of many objects not unlike DNA. »
Ehr, I think that there are quite a few biochemists and biologists and hardware designers who'd disagree with you on that one. Pretty much all of them, actually.
« Programing of any kind is by design with an intent and purpose. »
Yes, and yet you still cannot tell me where the information produced by this genetic algorithm comes from.
« It is not circular, it is an objective observation. »
No, it's circular alright: it was designed because it has purpose, and it has purpose because it was designed. You did not answer my question about what reasons you have to believe that it has purpose.
Yes, I did, it is because of the wisdom and understanding that it took to design everything. Don't forget that all the elements of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen etc. were also designed to function as well as they do on the nanoscale which means the whole entire universe is by design because of those same elements.
The wisdom and understanding that it took to make all of the millions of life forms that did not make themselves to leads me to believe they were all designed.
Are you intentionally avoiding the fact that the basic elements of carbon and hydrogen also have to have been designed for nanotechnology of the life forms to be possible?
« The wisdom and understanding that it took to make all of the millions of life forms that did not make themselves to leads me to believe they were all designed. »
So you're saying that it was designed because it was wise to design it? You're right, that's not a circular argument: that's a non-sequitur. Or, more accurately: bullshit.
Seekmost, stop beating around the bush and avoiding my question.
WHAT REASON DO YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT LIFE WAS DESIGNED? WHAT REASON THAT IT HAS PURPOSE?
It was designed because it is designed and no object ever designed anything of intelligence or loaded with information the way that life forms are loaded with the information to make the 200,000 proteins that the life form needs to reproduce the information that it already has. The "directive" is to make these thousands of proteins to reproduce themselves as unique as they are.
You either have to give credit to objects or you have to give credit to a Designer/Creator/God.
What reason do you have to believe that life was not designed? I would like to see you design a hair, nail, skin or a bone protein. What makes you BELIEVE that it designed itself or that the hills designed 200,000 of these proteins. YOU are not addressing the issues and YOU are not answering the questions.
I liked it the other way. What reason do you have to believe that life was not designed? You have to give credit to something or some truth for directing everything and we don't see anything that could have directed everything down to the basic elements of hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen etc., up to and including the entire universe. Everything was made for life forms to function as well as they do between the temperatures of freezing and boiling. You have to give credit where it's due.
So you don't have a reason for believing that life is not designed. You just believe it without any evidence. A negative is just the other side of a positive. You believe that life was not designed. That is a negative claim. If you can't prove a negative, you can't prove that life was not designed. You just don't want to face the same scrutiny that you want me to face. DNA corrects itself in order to maintain the viability of the species. It can't afford to do algorithms. It doesn't have wisdom.
« So you don't have a reason for believing that life is not designed »
O, I've got plenty of reasons - one of which is the fact that evolutionary theory exlpains life's diversity quite accurately and requires no design - but yours is not a positive claim, now is it? Make a positive claim, and we'll talk about it. Otherwise, stop talking nonsense.
« A negative is just the other side of a positive »
Wrong. A negative could entail any positive claim. When I say you weren't born, that could mean you were gestated to a semblance of maturity in an artificial womb, or you were produced by projecting an quantum eigen-state onto a bose-einstein condensate using coherent particle matter beams, or you don't exist, or... Any positive claim is testable. Negative claims are not.
"DNA corrects itself in order to maintain the viability of the species." To an extent, but it does cause errors in replication. Small ones, silent ones, but mutations nonetheless. What and where those mutations are determines if the change is positive, neutral, or negative. Additonally, wobble rules and codon availability determine folding patterns as well as the intrinsic energy level of the protein chain.
First of all, you are speaking of a design that is already in place and you say there are errors but you did not say that even the errors that are made are corrected. Software has an error rate of one in a billion. DNA is a thousand time more accurate than that. So where is this mutation that you say is happening when even the errors that are made are corrected?
A-T (dimers) errors are very common and are a cause of much of the mutations we see in organisms. The repair enzymes are very good, but sometimes errors do slip in (inosine as a base). This is why the G-C% of a genome is used as a calculation of it's stability. Excision repairs occur, and with mistranslations the coded protein changes. This is one of the things that was very well demonstrated by the MSU Lenski LTEE experiment.
In prokaryotes, providing the mutation is not lethal, there is no repair. Why? As the organism sees it, there is nothing wrong and the system will not expend energy on fixing something that is not broken. In eukarotes, it's a bit more complex since sex and therefore recombination of the genes are involved and the addition of multiple alleles of required genes.
« What reason do you have to believe that life was not designed? »
What reason do I have that it *was* designed?
« I would like to see you design a hair, nail, skin or a bone protein »
Why would I? If I were to design life, it would be all interchangeable modules made from durable materials. I wouldn't mess around with yucky hydrocarbon protoplasms.
Life was designed because it works and it works well. Life's functions on the nanoscale has stimulated us to learn and understand everything there is to know. Not only is life designed, it is digital information that is stored for each of the millions of life forms. I seriously do not believe you can top that.
The "yucky" part is where everything works. Life grows out of the yuck because that is the basis of all life forms.
Can you breath life into silicates? Besides, don't think that what you see is the only thing there is. There are conceivably many more designs of many more creatures that are much more durable.
We don't have to know the why of anything to know that it is. Most of what we see, we have no clue as to the why but we can investigate it ...and we can still know when a design works.
So you are saying that the creatures and evidence that you can see are not enough.
That is the point. We have history about events that gives us the knowledge that we otherwise would not have. We have an account of a burning bush. Are you so sure that there really was no such thing? Have you seen everything there is to see? What Christians believe is based on actual historical accounts and observable intelligent design. This is far from "ungrounded" and the conclusions are very sure.
This has been flagged as spam show
What's with the amounts of dislikes?
MatsEP 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
MatsEP 2 weeks ago
Samy is just a tiny bit not so great as Christopher, but its close!
AxeHomeless 3 months ago
@AxeHomeless haha true!
thepalebludot 2 months ago
@AxeHomeless I would say that Christopher is a little more entertaining than Sam, but I think Sam is a hell of a lot more effective. Hitchens could be written off as an angry, emotion driven atheist easier. But Sams calm, cool, respectful style of speaking slaughters them so gently, it's hard for the religious to disregard what he says.
JarethGT 3 weeks ago
Sometimes i cannot fathom why a tested and tried methodology is being attacked again by religious barbarism
sonykroket 3 months ago in playlist Truthdig Debate: Sam Harris vs Chris Hedges
@sonykroket Because people want to have authority over other people's lives... the power they lack over themselves, they want over other people. of course, that's just one of the reasons...
allfitch84 2 months ago
Next time there should be a picture-in-picture insert in the corner of the reaction of the other guy for added effect and amusement.
bovinicide 5 months ago
connection between faith and fanaticism is treated as if it were a startling exception rather than a grim rule.
nigelsenchez 5 months ago
Oooh, Count Chocula is my favorite Horseman! No wait, that's my favorite monster cereal.
D'you think they (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens) should sell trading cards?
ChollieD 6 months ago
Biting, very salient and illuminating, yet humorous in a brilliantly respectful way. The guy is amazing.
Rascaduanok 6 months ago 19
Tutorial: How to destroy religion in 10 minutes
sebah1991 8 months ago 19
@sebah1991 Haha, if you follow some of his other videos you'll see even better arguments in 2 or 3 minutes.
cyberslick18 1 month ago
sam presents amazing arguments against religion and even open ended for discussion about spirituality and other such stuff....
I love hearing him...
josefantom156 8 months ago 2
samharris*org/blog/item/why-id-rather-not-speak-about-torture1/ Please replace the * with a period, and thumbs up my comment if you'd like to reduce the idiotic notion that Sam is pro-torture, because this is getting ridiculous.
ArgoSG 9 months ago
sam harris is an excellent speaker. but his argument against miracle is quiet strange. he gave the example of sai baba and concludes that since sai baba's miracles don't appear in the discovery channel, those miracles can't happen. what kind of argument is this??
markchanggz 9 months ago
@markchanggz He's saying that it's hypocritical to easily dismiss alleged "miracles" that happen today, and yet unquestionably accept miracles that supposedly happened thousands of years ago. And that the only evidence that attests to the miracles of Jesus are 4 contradictory gospels written decades after his death.
Drgamedood 9 months ago
@Drgamedood therefore miracles can't happen? is it an argument against miracle?
markchanggz 9 months ago
@markchanggz I guess he meant that if these miracle was testable and repeatable, we would know it...
Acrimonator 9 months ago
@Acrimonator i'm not sure if harris would agree w/you, b/c you hold a very narrow criterion for knowledge. miracles can't be tested scientifically, so are many of our other everyday commonsensical beliefs. beliefs about morality can't be tested by science, for instance.
markchanggz 9 months ago
@markchanggz You obviously have not read Harris, particularly "The Moral Landscape".
pandurate 6 months ago
@pandurate i didn't read the book but saw the video where harris discussed the book (debate w/peter singer and simon blackburn).. harris admitted that morality couldn't be determined by science in the narrow sense (such as being tested in a lab), at least not yet. that's why peter singer told harris that if Harris' use of "science" refers to rational inquiry in general, then science is no better than disciplines such as philosophy in determining moral values.
markchanggz 5 months ago
@markchanggz He's changed his mind, apparently.
Wallyrus 4 months ago
@markchanggz Listen again. You have profoundly misunderstood his point.
reasonformirrors 6 months ago
I love the way Sam Harris speaks.
todomusika 10 months ago
Take me now Sam, I'm yours!
snoookmz 11 months ago
I thought I was having severe deja vu with Harris's speech here, but then I found this clip in my favorites:
watch?v=WsqTysSMQpk
This is a very good point he makes, and I'm glad he does it again.
duffman3 11 months ago
This nothing but doubt, doubt, questions after question.What about evolution? what about other religons? Where are the eye witness accounts? For one there is only one god, not gods And If we were capable fathoming the grand scheme of everything then there would be no purpose for religons or gospels. We were told what we needed to hear at the time.God has started a work in us.Created us in his image. And gave us the ability to create.
1moretime5 1 year ago
@1moretime5 you made no sense and also made a fool of yourself while doing that. everything you stated has no grounds in reality
Zellonium 11 months ago
@Zellonium so true "no grounds in reality" :D
nuitaridark 11 months ago
If I were the other guy I would get up and go home. Sam's speech was brilliant.
DaGavinX 1 year ago
@DaGavinX lol
punkgirlinLT 1 year ago
Great video! Sam Harris is awesome! I still haven't finished The End of Faith..
MiPedoteTUMBA 1 year ago
@MiPedoteTUMBA That book takes one day to read lol. When I get that back I won't be putting it down until i've finished it.
ndvak13 1 year ago
@ndvak13
I finished it a few weeks ago. Pretty good.
MiPedoteTUMBA 1 year ago
244 people have no ability to employ reason for even the few minutes it takes to follow Sam's argument
annata12 1 year ago
SAM HARRIS WENT HARD!!
cnestudy1 1 year ago
In principle i agree with Harris...but when it comes to his view on merging both his assessment of religion(which is brilliant imo) and his views on the foreign policy governments should take i completely disagree, both he and Hitchens are swimming in the deep end with no experience when it comes to such matters... and it is extremely apparent.
SinergyWave 1 year ago
@SinergyWave What is imo?
Pacinofan78 1 year ago
@Pacinofan78
In my opinion.
SinergyWave 1 year ago
did jesus really exist?
cnestudy1 1 year ago
Harris is really bluntly brilliant. He's not arrogant at all.
Zliq71 1 year ago
Sam Harris is like medicine. Love his style of conversation!!
astronivo20XX 1 year ago 2
Sam Harris is a great man. We need these knights of reason to fight religion. superstition has to be left behind so we can move forward as species.
bary1234 1 year ago 4
This is Sam at his best.
Never seen him this confident and smooth.
xofik 1 year ago 6
Not only is Sam Harris very smart, he's also quite funny. Oh yeah, and he's right, too. Hedges is a smart, well-versed man, too, but he's accomodating religion when it's not necessary to do so.
misterzonker2584 1 year ago
243 dislikes... can you say christian votebot?
adraim69 1 year ago
Just when I thought Sam couldn't be more succinct, clear and convincing, man he's a genuine voice of reason in our generation. Thank you Sam.
Neanderthalcouzin 1 year ago
1To a Christian all the proof we need is around us. It is not possible that laws came into exsistance by themselves. Sceince still cannot explain gravity, how could they explain a Being as unfathomable as GOD?
Just because Steven Hawkins or Dawkins (which doesn't even come close to Hawkins) doesn't believe in a god does not mean that people who do are less than intelligent. Remember that hi IQ is close to insanity! There is a riddle that people in college can't figure out but a 1st grader can
cottoncandicane 1 year ago
@cottoncandicane You say science still can't explain gravity....geometry explains gravity. You say God can't be explained scientifically....It has.
As a christian you say the proof is all around you, it is.
As a christian you follow a doctrine which commands you to kill homosexuals and is content with slavery. Any madman can justify his actions when he selectively quotes scripture from the Bible, give me ANY argument you want and i'll be happy to deconvert you, not from God, but from religion.
Whyisthat101 1 year ago
@cottoncandicane
Erm no: A hi IQ is close to genius. Insanity is found a the other end of the spectrum.
And the fact that a 1st grader would answer "God did it" is because he doesn't know better.
TomFynn 1 year ago
@TomFynn 1. The spelling is high IQ not hi IQ. LOL! 2.There is a correlation between High IQ and insanity. Look it up....... Autism/Hitler/Einstein/Picasso 3. If a 1st grader is raised in a atheist household he will say the FSM did it. LOL!
cottoncandicane 1 year ago
@cottoncandicane
The spelling "hi IQ" is quoted directly from your post I first replied to, so LOL right back at you. Look it up.
I doubt whether Hitler possessed anything like an IQ, Einstein was rather sociable and Picasso was a ladies man. Autism? ROFL.
If a first grader is raised in an atheist household he will say: "The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity."
TomFynn 1 year ago
@TomFynn Hitler's IQ was 141. Genius IQ is between 140-145. Look at the commonality between serial killers and their IQ being either close to genius or genius. Your argument failed. Oops! Looks like you need to do a little more investigating.
cottoncandicane 1 year ago
@TomFynn Hitler's IQ was 141. Genius IQ is between 140-145. Look at the commonality between serial killers and their IQ being either close to genius or genius. Your argument failed. Oops! Looks like you need to do a little more investigating. Your right the 1st grader would know it is a theory and is untested and unproven. Raised by only atheist parents she would not know about the real possibility of God the great singularity.
cottoncandicane 1 year ago
@cottoncandicane And if you want me actually believe that number you have to show me the certificate of the test. Which doesn't exist. Oops.
Serial killers are normally classified in the 111-120 range, but even so inferring on the character from the IQ alone is laughable.
A theory is a theory because it has been tested and proven over and over again. If not, it's a conjecture or a hypothesis. Or something completely pulled from the rectum. Like, say "God the great singularity".
TomFynn 1 year ago
So what did that Gura dude do for all those people? Did he promise to save man from their sin? And how? You can't save yourself.....
cottoncandicane 1 year ago
Regarding Sam Harris' defending religion point that 'only one religion can be right', Sam Harris doesn't acknowledge here the very glaring fact that every culture on Earth has held dear some metaphysical focus. Religious concerns do diverge between cultures, but there is in each case a fundamental and binding interest in the numinous between them; one which stubbornly continues to haunt the human mind in spite of our technology, in spite of our tensor equations and rational western inclinations.
5147848amp 1 year ago 2
I'm yet to see a crowd that consists of such a huge number of easily impressed morons like this crowd. Probably Dr. Zakir Naik's crowd is a close contestant. I don't know.
saqib09 1 year ago
It is truly sad that Sam actually has original things to say. Atheists sit here and applaud his brilliant rhetoric and badass lines like "The mass grave we call mythology." But he is so popular. He should be like every other guy. That the world needs to be told this? That people actually believe this stuff about magic and fairy tales? Absolutely depressing. But Sam's the man. The world's in a hole and he's lifting people out.
SevenRiderAirForce 1 year ago
@SevenRiderAirForce Well put. That's the striking thing, that we need to be told this. I think Harris does it so simply and eloquently, that he rightly deserves the praise. listening to him, one gets the sensation that ones mind is slowly sinking into a nice warm tub. No, I don't think his arguments are anything that any normally sane, interested person couldn't come to naturally, but he is an excellent speaker and writer, witty, and goes straight to the core in language anyone can understand
mhennek 1 year ago
This debate is wildly underrated.
devarkk 1 year ago
Then as an atheist. Where does evolution exist for you?
ET45349D 1 year ago
google flat fish
hykovachev 1 year ago
@ET45349D Evolution has nothing to do with atheism
markgg1 1 year ago
"What dogma have we used to reject all of the thousands of dead Gods; who now lie burried in the mass grave we call Mythology?!"
There's NO WAY Sam is getting beaten when he's throwing out lines like that!
snakesocks 1 year ago 154
This has been flagged as spam show
I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more strident claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general secular social perspectives
shieldsff 7 months ago
Sammy is my favourite Horseman.
sam51092 1 year ago 47
@sam51092
who are the other three? Hitchens, Dawkins...?
handofnergal 1 year ago
@handofnergal
...and Dan Dennett.
sam51092 1 year ago 2
@sam51092
LOL okay, awesome ^^
handofnergal 1 year ago
@sam51092 Mine too!
DarkLordoftheMeme 6 months ago
@sam51092 Personally i perfer hitch, but i could litsen to all of them god knows how long... The elequence the wit, awesome.
Solemgoodbye 6 months ago 3
That sababba guy Sam's referring to is a complete fraud! 100% charlatan! Check him out... Indian dude with a fro. There's videos online debunking his "miracles"... clear video evidence revealing his spontaneous manifestations as deliberate deceit. And millions still believe in him. :(
LIVEETERNALLOVE 2 years ago
Why do you claim that atheism is the idea that no religion is correct? when atheism is the claim that there is no diety. You can blieve in a diety and still think all religions are stupid. why would u have to adhere to someone elses beliefe about god to believe in the existense of a diety?
tigerw222 2 years ago
do u mean a "deity"?
mutefx 1 year ago
no i mean diety... a person who diets... why what is he talking about?
tigerw222 1 year ago
It's easy for any rational person to expose the writings of supposed holy scripts as rediculous, and no one does it better than Harris.
toelesshoe 2 years ago 4
I think I'm coming to think Sam Harris is my favorite of the "4 horsemen"
Tibberclaw 2 years ago 6
Yea, he's also more reasonable then the others. They're all cool, too. It's just that Sam acknowledges that anyone can have a spiritual experience, and not need religious dogma to justify it.
redchango 2 years ago
Hehe Sam Harris is a genious ;p
DinkyDoeDoe 2 years ago
I don't think he's a genius he just has common sense and is articulate.
kausidya 2 years ago 2
@kausidya We may interpret that as genius. Not many have common sense and are this articulate.
DinkyDoeDoe 2 years ago
HolyFAck! That Was A Good Part. Solid Even.
REALtimeJERiCHO 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
And I thought this man was intellegent????????...... Khomeini
brought this martyr system about to win a war with Iraq backed by Americans and Isreal..............................
suskky 2 years ago
mutefx
sorry matey but your wrong I KNOW i'm already dead and have been all my life and believe me there's nothing to believe in ..just think of all the time wasted on GODS ..if mankind had spent as much time on ecology the world might not end in september..
ArtistEnrique 2 years ago
The world didn't end, now what are you going to do?
mutefx 2 years ago
My two cents is that,
religous followers dont know what will happen after I die. Atheists dont know what will happen after I die. So everyone has the same chance, no matter how ridiculous their idea, to be right simply because NO ONE actually knows.
I myself am a proponent of 'Giant Spaghetti Monster ' dogma. IMHPO, I think all you atheists & anti-pasta-deity religions will burn in hot marinara & mozzarella for eternity. Not acknowledging our steaming angry Pasta Creator is blasphemy!!!
mutefx 2 years ago 38
I live in Asia so is there any concession made for us as noodle worshippers?
kusalaviro 2 years ago
Some, luke-warm marinara for you.
mutefx 2 years ago
"so everyone has the same chance [of being right]"
christians believe that they will be able to recognise faces after they die. This is a neurological conditon that we know can be disrupted at the level of the brain. If you deystroy a certain part of the brain you deystroy the ability to remember faces. So is it likely that if you deystroy the whole brain one would still be able to recognise faces? A lack of evidence does not make every rediculous claim about the nature of the universe equall
pp0u50f3 2 years ago
I was about to make a similar comment about why the chances are not equal although neither can disproven. The scientific approach has disproven certain Christian beliefs (like your example of the brain ceasing to function properly) therefore making their belief of what happens after death much less likely.
tat20001 2 years ago
What if science is there to throw you off God's trail, smart guy? Religion is supposed to be a test of faith, not a bet that you can hedge.
And spelling rediculous with an E, is ridiculous.
mutefx 2 years ago
wow, we have really travelled through the looking glass.
so essentialy God creates a world that when observed provides evidence against her exhistence. Then said god rewards people for ingoring the information haversted by their own senses. Or did the devil invent science?
"faith" is the excuse people give themselves to continue believing something when reasons fail
but maybe you won this discussion becuase i made a spelling mistake or do the words ad hominem mean anything to you. :-)
pp0u50f3 2 years ago 2
You can attack religous claims all day; make them look completely foolish. Im not arguing that. You are.
Im just curious, where exactly do YOU think life came from, or where does it go for that matter? I, personally, have no fucking clue & believe me, I've looked.
Anyone who says they know something like God, which is an untestable concept with our means, doesnt exist, is just stroking their ego.
So enjoy your parade for freeing humanity from its anxiety & fear of death, ok?
mutefx 2 years ago
Are you willing to base your beliefs on a "what if"? You just described Pascal's wager. I don't think that's being honoust to yourself. We'd better base our beliefs on what we can see, test and observe, since that's the most reliable account we have of reality. For what our origins are, we can only speculate. But I'd rather admit I don't know, then pretending I do know with some religious answer.
DinkyDoeDoe 2 years ago
How fucking stupid are you people?
"For what our origins are, we can only speculate. But I'd rather admit I don't know, then pretending I do know with some religious answer."
I never gave any religous answer, did I? I believe I said exactly what you said, "I don't know", but in your defense, it was weeks ago and scrolling down for background info is so time consuming.
Read through my comments. I haven't endorsed anything except mutual exclusion of ANY supposed answers about existence.
mutefx 2 years ago
"What if science is there to throw you off God's trail, smart guy? "
Well yeah funny, the sarcasm is somewhat hard to detect if a comment with somewhat opposite flavour is made 4 months ago.
DinkyDoeDoe 2 years ago
It's a legitimate question. Science can't prove anything to me as far as the afterlife (after, as in when your dead) is concerned. I have heard the claim that science COULD, not is, but COULD be a distraction from the worship of a God; a test of faith. I'm not endorsing the view, personally, but I can't discount it until I die.
And btw, it was 2 weeks ago, not 4 months. The majority of the discussion is on the first page, so I fail to see how you could miss my point.....unless you wanted to.
mutefx 2 years ago
Yes, what I reacted on was the comment from 2 weeks ago where it's not at all obvious what the intention of your post is.
So there is your answer. But if you want to call it a intentional misread, be my guest.
DinkyDoeDoe 2 years ago
I usually don't just come into a discussion assuming people's opinions. I won't say that's what you did here, but it sure as hell seemed like it from my side.
But who cares? No harm. No foul. Enjoy life.
mutefx 2 years ago
What does religion prove about the afterlife?
TheAstral1 2 years ago
Not to mention that if God's fooling us with science, he can't be all that upset that we don't believe in him.
TBlake34 2 years ago 2
@TBlake34, not too sure about that.
In the OT, god hardened Pharoah's heart and prevented him letting the jews go earlier, then visited torture and death on the Egyptians... for a delay he caused his omniscient self!
queenastilon 2 years ago
@mutefx
Ramen!
SevenRiderAirForce 1 year ago
@mutefx yes but you are somehow saying that the question 'Does somethinh happen when you die?' is a question with either yes/no so id 50/50.... the question it self is not even a legitimate question, because we know what happens to the body when we die, and there is no reason to suppose otherwise... there has never been any evidence to say something does happen... so I reject the question..
markgg1 1 year ago
@mutefx - The FSM is material and that is all an athiest can believe in, however, quite funny! I am a Christian & I do know what happens after death. The Bible tells what will happen. Where did you get we don't know?
cottoncandicane 1 year ago
@cottoncandicane
I don't trust the righteousness of the Bible, why are there so many different interpretations if it's written by God? Humans are fearful creatures; we understand that we are going die, no matter what. That knowledge justifies, or creates, a need to explain what death is or where we go afterward. You have "explained" it, I guess. I'm not an atheist btw, you have the same chance of being right about the afterlife as anyone else who throws something out there, like the FSM.
mutefx 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cottoncandicane "I do know what happens after death. The Bible tells what will happen." Nope. You believe the Bible because PEOPLE told you it's true & it claims divine authorship (as ALL holy books do). Most of the world disagrees with you, btw.
Read another one; you'll find some good advice but also bad, absurdities & contradictions, its divine figures/prophets not nearly so just, wise & good as millions of believers claim.
That's how atheists see holy books, too, including yours.
queenastilon 1 year ago
@cottoncandicane You don´t know, or, if you do, what special information are you privy to that is denied to me? Please tell me you have more than the bible to back you up, if you can´t, please don´t waste any time in replying. Thank you.
yatter1 1 year ago
@mutefx LMAO nice one ;)
rooflee 1 year ago
@mutefx R'Amen
Fenixx117 1 year ago
@mutefx LOL!!!
Pacinofan78 1 year ago
@mutefx "religous followers dont know what will happen after I die. Atheists dont know what will happen after I die"
That is correct but not everyone has the same chance to find out. We might someday discover there is an afterlife but it has a much better chance of happening thru science than by faith. Nothing is ever known by faith or assumption.
Strangerinasland 6 months ago
@mutefx BTW, GSM was created by FSM & FSM was created by IPU. GSM should be careful not to get too big for its platter.
Strangerinasland 6 months ago
6:05 - 7:10 = GOLD
24LakerGirl 2 years ago 5
yeap..priceless !!!
Marcusvdgg71 2 years ago
What Religon today did to the world, is what Atheism will do in 50 years, creat another chaos, for those who are already confussed
clintonrand 2 years ago
@clintonrand The most ahteistic societies are the most rich, less violent, less poverty, most educated etc etc.. And I can prove it if you want statistics. I know Mao, and Stalin were also 'Atheisitc'.. but my point is its obvious god is not needed, or even relevant to a functioning society.. its good political ideology.
markgg1 1 year ago
Harris is wrong... FSM is real. His noodly appendiges have touched me..
Nades129 2 years ago
Ill show you a noodly appendage
nigerlover18 2 years ago
The gospels were written a long, long time after the events they describe were supposed to have happened by people who werent there and who only heard the stories second-hand, third-hand, or worse.
This is worth considering
heal2012 2 years ago
Just a slight correction, the gospels actually were written not very long after the events they described, at least from a historical point of view. Consider that the Jews were a people who orally passed down their knowledge, and apparently efficient at doing so. Then the Gospel of Mark was written by a follower of Peter, someone who had stayed by Jesus' side throughout his ministry. Matthew and John were disciples of Jesus as well. Then theres Luke, who compiled various sources into one gospel.
Daxcheese 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Is Sam Harris making all of these responses?
Wrong is wrong no matter what and Sam Harris is wrong. Objects do not make information.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
you are a blind and def religious retard go and watch some fucked up televangelist and send all your money to him so he can have some coke while his fucking a male prostitute. Dumbass
frank3976 2 years ago
You don't know very much about what the Bible is all about. You are not that much different than the TV "evangelist" you speak of because neither knows very much about what the Bible is all about and you are not addressing the issues. There are thousands of unexplained directives that are 3 billion digits long that science is unable to account for. It is an "open book" test and they still have not been able to make a life form even by using whatever intellect that they have.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
from reading your posts your a confused individual you mistake science answer 'we don't know yet" for evidence of a god. Lets look what has happened in the past with that we don't know how old the earth is so the bible and god must be right. There was only a 6 billion year degree of error with that assumption thats pretty close right?
izbo10 2 years ago
The age of the earth has nothing to do with the age of life on earth.
That is what happens when you just believe whatever you hear without testing it. All of these things have been considered many times before so don't assume that you somehow know better.
The evidence of a Designer that has all knowledge, all power and who eternal is evident.
Seekmosttoprophesy 2 years ago
he makes so much sense
messii67 2 years ago
I like Sam Harris, because of his humble and calm demeanor. He provide some wise and witty arguments without being excited. He's probably my favorite among the "four horsemen" :)
armelix73 2 years ago 8
sam's as good as the hitchmonster if not better
danny123xvz 2 years ago 2
God Sam Harris is so hot. I know, I know, not the most intellectual or thought-provoking statement -- but it has to be said.
anulay 3 years ago 10
Sam is a great speaker. I admire his way of getting his points across in such a clear and precise way. Bravo!
hamstenator 3 years ago 3
Serve the atheists a fine dinner and ask them if they believe in a cook. - Ronald Regan
There is a good discussion at the following address.
watch?v=c1dElClzrnA&feature=email
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
"devastating arguments" by Sam Harris.
requiemdexter 3 years ago
The arguments of Sam Harris are devastating to himself perhaps but biblical teaching has been around for 6010 years and it is not about to be refuted. On the contrary, intelligent design is observable and objects do not make information.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
« intelligent design is observable »
Good! Where is it then?
« and objects do not make information »
I'll write you a simple computer program that says you're wrong.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
You writing a cumputer program is intelligent design ...or did you forget that?
DNA is observable ...or did you forget that?
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
« You writing a cumputer program is intelligent design ...or did you forget that? »
So? It'll still be an object generating the information, however that object came to be.
« DNA is observable ...or did you forget that? »
And?
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
No, it is a designed group of a very large number of objects that generates a computer program. It is all attributed to design and NOT to objects.
DNA is observable intelligent design and don't you ever forget that.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
« It is all attributed to design and NOT to objects. »
But I did not specify the information or even the general classification of that information in the design. It was produced by an open ended non-teleological genetic algorithm. So where did the information come from?
« DNA is observable intelligent design »
How then? What about DNA leads us to conclude it was designed?
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
Objects are not able to do algorithms.
DNA leads us to conclude it was designed because it results in a functional design (it results in millions of functional designs).
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
« Objects are not able to do algorithms. »
Ehr, yes they are. They're called 'computers'. And they're objects. O, and ever hear of 'object oriented programming'?
« because it results in a functional design »
Circular reasoning. It's purposeful because it was designed, and it was designed because it's purposeful. What leads you to conclude DNA has purpose in the first place?
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
A computer is a design made of many objects not unlike DNA. Programing of any kind is by design with an intent and purpose.
We can see that it took a lot of wisdom and discretion to make every life form there is and was. It is not circular, it is an objective observation.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
« A computer is a design made of many objects not unlike DNA. »
Ehr, I think that there are quite a few biochemists and biologists and hardware designers who'd disagree with you on that one. Pretty much all of them, actually.
« Programing of any kind is by design with an intent and purpose. »
Yes, and yet you still cannot tell me where the information produced by this genetic algorithm comes from.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
« It is not circular, it is an objective observation. »
No, it's circular alright: it was designed because it has purpose, and it has purpose because it was designed. You did not answer my question about what reasons you have to believe that it has purpose.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
Yes, I did, it is because of the wisdom and understanding that it took to design everything. Don't forget that all the elements of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen etc. were also designed to function as well as they do on the nanoscale which means the whole entire universe is by design because of those same elements.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
« Yes, I did, it is because of the wisdom and understanding that it took to design everything »
So it's designed because it has purpose, and it has purpose because it was designed?
Do you recognize the fact that we're not getting anywhere as long as you keep this circle going? Okay, let me rephrase the question -
What reasons OTHER THAN YOUR BELIEF IT WAS DESIGNED do you have to believe that DNA has purpose?
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
The wisdom and understanding that it took to make all of the millions of life forms that did not make themselves to leads me to believe they were all designed.
Are you intentionally avoiding the fact that the basic elements of carbon and hydrogen also have to have been designed for nanotechnology of the life forms to be possible?
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
« The wisdom and understanding that it took to make all of the millions of life forms that did not make themselves to leads me to believe they were all designed. »
So you're saying that it was designed because it was wise to design it? You're right, that's not a circular argument: that's a non-sequitur. Or, more accurately: bullshit.
Seekmost, stop beating around the bush and avoiding my question.
WHAT REASON DO YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT LIFE WAS DESIGNED? WHAT REASON THAT IT HAS PURPOSE?
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
It was designed because it is designed and no object ever designed anything of intelligence or loaded with information the way that life forms are loaded with the information to make the 200,000 proteins that the life form needs to reproduce the information that it already has. The "directive" is to make these thousands of proteins to reproduce themselves as unique as they are.
You either have to give credit to objects or you have to give credit to a Designer/Creator/God.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
« It was designed because it is designed »
How do you know how it was designed? WHAT REASON DO YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE IT WAS DESIGNED? You're not answering the question.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
What reason do you have to believe that life was not designed? I would like to see you design a hair, nail, skin or a bone protein. What makes you BELIEVE that it designed itself or that the hills designed 200,000 of these proteins. YOU are not addressing the issues and YOU are not answering the questions.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
What reason do you have to believe that life was no designed?
No, that question works the other way. What reason is there to believe it WAS designed? NONE.
1ProudFemaleAtheist 3 years ago
I liked it the other way. What reason do you have to believe that life was not designed? You have to give credit to something or some truth for directing everything and we don't see anything that could have directed everything down to the basic elements of hydrogen, carbon, oxygen and nitrogen etc., up to and including the entire universe. Everything was made for life forms to function as well as they do between the temperatures of freezing and boiling. You have to give credit where it's due.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
« I liked it the other way. »
That's your problem. Most people, and all of science, work with positive claims. You can't do anything with negative claims.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
So you don't have a reason for believing that life is not designed. You just believe it without any evidence. A negative is just the other side of a positive. You believe that life was not designed. That is a negative claim. If you can't prove a negative, you can't prove that life was not designed. You just don't want to face the same scrutiny that you want me to face. DNA corrects itself in order to maintain the viability of the species. It can't afford to do algorithms. It doesn't have wisdom.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
« So you don't have a reason for believing that life is not designed »
O, I've got plenty of reasons - one of which is the fact that evolutionary theory exlpains life's diversity quite accurately and requires no design - but yours is not a positive claim, now is it? Make a positive claim, and we'll talk about it. Otherwise, stop talking nonsense.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
« You just believe it without any evidence »
I just gave you three titles. Go look into those, then tell me there is no evidence. Then I'll give you 3.000.000 more titles you can look at.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
« A negative is just the other side of a positive »
Wrong. A negative could entail any positive claim. When I say you weren't born, that could mean you were gestated to a semblance of maturity in an artificial womb, or you were produced by projecting an quantum eigen-state onto a bose-einstein condensate using coherent particle matter beams, or you don't exist, or... Any positive claim is testable. Negative claims are not.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
Not when you have a given positive which is intelligent design that is observable. It is not a negative because it is observable.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
"DNA corrects itself in order to maintain the viability of the species." To an extent, but it does cause errors in replication. Small ones, silent ones, but mutations nonetheless. What and where those mutations are determines if the change is positive, neutral, or negative. Additonally, wobble rules and codon availability determine folding patterns as well as the intrinsic energy level of the protein chain.
magick205 3 years ago
First of all, you are speaking of a design that is already in place and you say there are errors but you did not say that even the errors that are made are corrected. Software has an error rate of one in a billion. DNA is a thousand time more accurate than that. So where is this mutation that you say is happening when even the errors that are made are corrected?
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
A-T (dimers) errors are very common and are a cause of much of the mutations we see in organisms. The repair enzymes are very good, but sometimes errors do slip in (inosine as a base). This is why the G-C% of a genome is used as a calculation of it's stability. Excision repairs occur, and with mistranslations the coded protein changes. This is one of the things that was very well demonstrated by the MSU Lenski LTEE experiment.
magick205 3 years ago
You also have not mentioned the corrections that subsequent generations make.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
In prokaryotes, providing the mutation is not lethal, there is no repair. Why? As the organism sees it, there is nothing wrong and the system will not expend energy on fixing something that is not broken. In eukarotes, it's a bit more complex since sex and therefore recombination of the genes are involved and the addition of multiple alleles of required genes.
magick205 3 years ago
We are still dealing with designs that are already in place. There is still no creation going on anywhere.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
« What reason do you have to believe that life was not designed? »
What reason do I have that it *was* designed?
« I would like to see you design a hair, nail, skin or a bone protein »
Why would I? If I were to design life, it would be all interchangeable modules made from durable materials. I wouldn't mess around with yucky hydrocarbon protoplasms.
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
What is more durable than atoms?
Life was designed because it works and it works well. Life's functions on the nanoscale has stimulated us to learn and understand everything there is to know. Not only is life designed, it is digital information that is stored for each of the millions of life forms. I seriously do not believe you can top that.
The "yucky" part is where everything works. Life grows out of the yuck because that is the basis of all life forms.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
« What is more durable than atoms? »
Protons. But why use hydrocarbons when you could have useed silicates? Much more durable.
« Life was designed because it works and it works well »
"Life was designed because it works"
First explain WHY you think it was designed in the first place! Good gods, man, do you even know the meaning of the word reason?
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
Can you breath life into silicates? Besides, don't think that what you see is the only thing there is. There are conceivably many more designs of many more creatures that are much more durable.
We don't have to know the why of anything to know that it is. Most of what we see, we have no clue as to the why but we can investigate it ...and we can still know when a design works.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago
« Can you breath life into silicates? »
It'd be a waste of time to design something that'll never work, now wouldn't it?
« Besides, don't think that what you see is the only thing there is »
I don't. But neither do I make ungrounded assumptions re things I have no knowledge about.
« There are conceivably many more designs of many more creatures that are much more durable »
Good! Show them to me!
XGralgrathor 3 years ago
So you are saying that the creatures and evidence that you can see are not enough.
That is the point. We have history about events that gives us the knowledge that we otherwise would not have. We have an account of a burning bush. Are you so sure that there really was no such thing? Have you seen everything there is to see? What Christians believe is based on actual historical accounts and observable intelligent design. This is far from "ungrounded" and the conclusions are very sure.
Seekmosttoprophesy 3 years ago